Admin note: This topic was split from the "Origins of the abrogation doctrine" topic, which is meant to discuss the validity of abrogation in principle, not case by case. Here we want to discuss a methodology or an algorithm that can be applied to each case in order to validate or refute it.

Per your point #2, Pragmatic, I'd like to develop a discipline, perhaps in the form of a checklist, that we systemically apply to each claim. Only cases that pass through the entire checklist can be verified as credible.

There is such a checklist developed by none other than the scholars who believe in abrogation. There are 5 conditions listed at the top of page 3 of (the Internet copy of) نواسخ القرآن لابن الجوزي as well as similar conditions listed in the other references. Could you please cut and paste that part for completeness? (I could not do it on my system)

There is such a checklist developed by none other than the scholars who believe in abrogation. There are 5 conditions listed at the top of page 3 of (the Internet copy of) نواسخ القرآن لابن الجوزي as well as similar conditions listed in the other references. Could you please cut and paste that part for completeness? (I could not do it on my system)

Thank you. The last part of the cut-and-paste addresses the opinions about Sunna abrogating Quran, and there is a thread that addresses this subject. The first part covers the 5 conditions the scholars came up with to decide whether a ruling was abrogated by another ruling. You summarized these conditions in the post you refer to, and I include my own articulation of these conditions below.

The scholars focussed on abrogating a ruling rather than a verse, implicitly excluding non-ruling verses from the possibility of being abrogated, but also widening the scope of discussion to rulings that are not included in verses and opening the possibility of abrogating a ruling (or part of a verse) without abrogating the whole verse, a possibility that I have reservations about per my post. Here is my articulation of the 5 conditions.

(1) The rulings in the abrogated and abrogating verses have to be contradictory in such a way that one cannot apply them together. If one can, then neither abrogates the other, and this can manifest itself in two ways. First, one of the rulings is addressing what the other ruling addressed, but in a more general setting or a more specific setting. A specific setting does not require abrogating the general setting. Rather, it clarifies that the ruling in a specific instance is not covered by the general setting. Second, one of the rulings applies to a case that the other ruling does not apply to.

(2) The abrogated ruling must have occurred chronologically before the abrogating ruling. This can be established in two ways, either by inference from the text (as in "Now God has eased it on you and knew that there is weakness in you" ), or by knowledge of the historical timeline that establishes that the first ruling came about earlier than the second ruling. Even if two rulings cannot be reconciled, there has to be a proof of which one came first, otherwise a claim of abrogation of either of them would be void.

(3) The abrogated ruling must be explicit in a text. If the ruling is established just by custom or consensus, then an explicit ruling that overrules it would not be abrogating it per se, but rather establishing a ruling in the first place.

(4) The confidence in the abrogating ruling must be as well established as the abrogated ruling. An explicit ruling cannot be abrogated just by a consensus opinion or an analytic conclusion.

(5) The authenticity of the abrogating ruling must be at least as strong as the authenticity of the abrogated ruling. If it is weaker, it cannot abrogate something stronger.

Based on the information posted so far, let me start proposing an algorithm for the validation of an abrogation case,

0. Is there a direct statement from God or His Messenger that the verse is abrogated? If so, it is abrogated regardless of all the remaining rules, here or elsewhere and you can ignore the rest of the rules below. If not, then continue checking out the following rules.

1. Is the abrogated text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not, the discussion is irrelevant to the scope of this project.

2. Is the abrogating text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not the case is invalid since nothing can abrogate the Quran, if anything would, but the Quran.

3. Is the abrogated verse a statement of fact (semantically, not just syntactically)? Then it cannot be abrogated.

4. Is the abrogating verse other than the abrogated verse? If not, the case is invalid. Self abrogation is invalid per 2:106.

5. Is the abrogation claim total? If not, it's invalid. A verse can either be abrogated in its entirety or not abrogated in its entirety. There is no partial abrogation of a verse, per 2:106.

6.Was the abrogating verse revealed after the abrogated verse?

7. Was the abrogation in fact an exemption? If it was, it's not abrogation but a completion of the specification of a ruling.

8. Was the abrogation in fact another option? If it was, it's not abrogation but a completion of the specification of a ruling.

9. Does the abrogated verse specify a time limit for its ruling? If it does, it can only be abrogated if the abrogating verse came before the expiration of the time limit.

10. Does the abrogated verse specify a contingency for its ruling? If it does, then it can only be abrogated if the abrogating verse does not meet the conditions of the contingency.

11. Does the abrogated verse specify something particular and the abrogating verse made it general? If so, that's not abrogation because that adds scope. It would be abrogation if the scope was narrowed.

12. Do the two verses speak of two different circumstances, or two different people? If so, they are complementary and no abrogation can be claimed.

13. Is there any explanation by way of logical, historical, linguistic or other means that can show that the two verses are not contradictory and can actually be complied to together? If so, the claim of abrogation is unnecessary.

Please add to the list and suggest where in the list your suggestion should be. I'll maintain it based on your suggestions.

It will be useful to attach opinions of credible scholars to any of these points that they agree with.

Since Shah Waliullah (see this post) seems to be the scholar on the side of abrogation with the minimal set of abrogated verses, it will be useful to understand his reasoning since his criteria for abrogation are likely to be more stringent than those of other scholars.

1. Is the abrogated text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not, the discussion is irrelevant to the scope of this project.

2. Is the abrogating text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not the case is invalid since nothing can abrogate the Quran, if anything would, but the Quran.

3. Is the abrogated verse a statement of fact (semantically, not just syntactically)? Then it cannot be abrogated.

4. Is the abrogating verse other than the abrogated verse? If not, the case is invalid. Self abrogation is invalid per 2:106.

5. Is the abrogation claim total? If not, it's invalid. A verse can either be abrogated in its entirety or not abrogated in its entirety. There is no partial abrogation of a verse, per 2:106.

6. Was the abrogating verse revealed after the abrogated verse?

7. Was the abrogation in fact an exemption? If it was, it's not abrogation but a completion of the specification of a ruling.

8. Was the abrogation in fact another option? If it was, it's not abrogation but a completion of the specification of a ruling.

9. Does the abrogated verse specify a time limit for its ruling? If it does, it can only be abrogated if the abrogating verse came before the expiration of the time limit.

10. Does the abrogated verse specify a contingency for its ruling? If it does, then it can only be abrogated if the abrogating verse does not meet the conditions of the contingency.

11. Does the abrogated verse specify something particular and the abrogating verse made it general? If so, that's not abrogation because that adds scope. It would be abrogation if the scope was narrowed.

12. Do the two verses speak of two different circumstances, or two different people? If so, they are complementary and no abrogation can be claimed.

13. Is there any explanation by way of logical, historical, linguistic or other means that can show that the two verses are not contradictory and can actually be complied to together? If so, the claim of abrogation is unnecessary.

Excellent list and organization; 1-6 exclude abrogation based on objective criteria, 7-12 exclude abrogation based on subjective criteria, and 13 excludes abrogation based on "benefit of the doubt." Possible overlap between these points is not a problem, since all are simultaneously required in order to accept an abrogation case. For instance, 4 and 5 have overlap, and so do 12 and 13 as you pointed out.

Ibn Al-Hasaar said that abrogation cases must be based on an explicit narration tracing back to the Messenger of God or to a Sahaabi saying, "Verse such and such abrogated that other verse." He said that opinions of scholars should not be a basis because abrogation rescinds a ruling and fixes another. That has to be decided by authentic reports and knowledge of sequence of events, history, not on opinion and analysis.

He also highlights how scholars have been different in how strict they are; some say that authentic reports narrated by only a few are not eligible evidence for abrogation, while others have been liberal and would accept the opinion of a scholar.

Interesting find. Here is the translation of the part that I quoted from Ibn Al-Hasaar's opinion, building on your translation. The rest of the opinion is just saying that scholarly opinions are not enough to make an abrogation claim.

In abrogation, things should be based on an explicit narration tracing back to the Messenger of God, or to a Sahaabi (companion of the Prophet) saying "Verse such and such abrogated that other verse." Abrogation may also be ruled when there is irrefutable contradiction with knowledge of the timeline to identify which verse came before which.

The opinion shows how people struggle with the abrogation notion and try to strike a balance between the gravity of declaring a verse abrogated and their belief that such verses exist. In this quote, the first part of the criterion (explicit narration from the Prophet PBUH) never occurred for cases of abrogation in the text of the Quran. The second part of narration from a Sahaabi (that is not attributing the abrogation statement back to the Prophet) is controversial even if the narration is authentic, since the abrogation statement in this case would be an opinion, and even Sahaabis (may God be pleased with them) are not infallible in their opinions and we are talking about overruling the Quran here.

Linguistic wrote:

Should we include any of this in the validation checklist?

It seems to me that the criteria of Ibn Al-Hasaar are a conservative alternative to the criteria we have in the checklist, rather than being additional criteria. Maybe these are the criteria that Shah Waliullah used to come up with his reduced list of 5 abrogation cases? Of course the part about "irrefutable contradiction" in Ibn Al-Hasaar's opinion will be subject to who makes that judgment.

3. Is the abrogated verse a statement of fact (semantically, not just syntactically)? Then it cannot be abrogated.

The basis for this rule was mentioned in this post. In the interpretation of the Quran by Ibn Katheer, the commentary on 2:106 by Ibn Jareer mentions the scope of abrogation and excludes statements of fact from it. Here is the quote

13. Is there any explanation by way of logical, historical, linguistic or other means that can show that the two verses are not contradictory and can actually be complied to together? If so, the claim of abrogation is unnecessary.

This seems to be the rule most often violated in the abrogation claims. In modern terms, it says that abrogation has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because it is argumentative in nature, I suggest that we discuss the rule in detail in a separate section and cite all the scholars who support it and discuss their elaboration, and perhaps give examples of verses that have never been considered abrogated but might be if that rule was violated, in order to underline the importance of the rule. This way, when we invoke the rule, we can refer to that section instead of making petty arguments in individual cases.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum